[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190424221034.GB22896@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 22:10:39 +0000
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/9] cgroup: cgroup v2 freezer
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/05, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > @@ -5830,6 +5926,12 @@ void cgroup_exit(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > spin_lock_irq(&css_set_lock);
> > css_set_move_task(tsk, cset, NULL, false);
> > cset->nr_tasks--;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(cgroup_task_frozen(tsk)))
> > + cgroup_freezer_frozen_exit(tsk);
> > + else if (unlikely(cgroup_task_freeze(tsk)))
> > + cgroup_update_frozen(task_dfl_cgroup(tsk));
> > +
Hello, Oleg!
A good catch! It's actually a leftover from one of the previous versions
of the patchset. In the current iteration I'd replace it with:
WARN_ON_ONCE(cgroup_task_frozen(tsk));
just to make sure we're not leaking the frozen bit.
Do you agree?
Thank you!
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists